Moderator: Cartographers
oaktown wrote:hasn't been done, but it's been talked about and is within the guidelines. I would caution against over-doing it... there's a lot going on with this map already, so subtlety would be in order.
But yeah, worry about everything else first.
Night Strike wrote:Twinkling stars would be amazing, but I believe that any map animation isn't allowed because DiM tried it on AoM for the ship.
DiM wrote:yes i made an animated map. see page 34 in the age of merchants thread. and yes it has been voted against but because it does not suit the style of the map. on other maps animations could be more appropriate.
but probably the main reason why people voted no is the slowing of the pc. nobody wants to wait for their map to load especially in a RT game.![]()
i still belive animated maps are great but only as an option. this way we'll be able to choose if we want animation.
edbeard wrote:the XX part refers to where the jump gate is located
AB = asteroid belt
N = Neptune
etc...
so I'm not sure if that can be changed, but the wording definitely could be improved
I'm hoping it will catch on with other map makers.cairnswk wrote:and i like the list of future things you got noted there to be done.
cairnswk wrote:1. I agree with oaktown about possibly making the Jump Gates "legend" less wordy...perhaps "Jump Gates [name format JG-XX] may attack each other"
cairnswk wrote:2. Some of the jump gates are not named in the JG-XX format. they are JG-X...is this deliberate, or are they named after specific gates...and would you consider renaming those that don't have that format?
edbeard wrote:the XX part refers to where the jump gate is located
AB = asteroid belt
N = Neptune
etc...
cairnswk wrote:Max...do you plan any explanation of the I assume one-way arrows? Will everyone know what they are instantaneously?
maxdetjens wrote:I'm hoping it will catch on with other map makers.cairnswk wrote:and i like the list of future things you got noted there to be done.cairnswk wrote:1. I agree with oaktown about possibly making the Jump Gates "legend" less wordy...perhaps "Jump Gates [name format JG-XX] may attack each other"
Thats a clear improvement in wording. I'll try it and see how it looks in that odd space.cairnswk wrote:2. Some of the jump gates are not named in the JG-XX format. they are JG-X...is this deliberate, or are they named after specific gates...and would you consider renaming those that don't have that format?edbeard wrote:the XX part refers to where the jump gate is located
AB = asteroid belt
N = Neptune
etc...
Regardless there is some issue with saying the format is XX when sometimes it's X. I kinda hate it, but is there support for:
NE = Neptune
JU = Juputer
UR = Uranus
?cairnswk wrote:Max...do you plan any explanation of the I assume one-way arrows? Will everyone know what they are instantaneously?
I wasn't planning on it. My second or third CC game was on the SF map. I totally screwed myself by putting a whole bunch of armies on Alcatraz not realizing it was a minnow trap. I think most folk are like me. Once they have that first unpleasant realization that CC supports one way they begin to look for it in maps. One way routes are only sometimes pointed out.
Lets see how the new sun jump gate text looks, and maybe there is room for a blurb about one way transitions from high to low orbit.
edbeard wrote:if you can get the large map's asteroid belt to look like the small map's asteroid belt that would be good.
On the large map it looks like you increased the brightness of all the attack routes except the ones over Jupiter (I'm not saying that's what happened it's just the difference between them is still noticeable because of the planet underneath). I think they all looked fine before except for the Jupiter ones. Overall I'd say something inbetween this version and the one on 21 would be better, except make the one's on Jupiter brighter than the rest otherwise they seem hidden.
Coleman wrote:Well I don't want to have to watch him bounce back and forth between bright and not so bright.
Night Strike wrote:Hmmm.........I don't like the bright army circles and attack lines. Maybe closer to what you had earlier? The subtlety of the "battlefield" helped the eyes focus on the planetary graphics. I also think this whiteness looks more like your original, insanely bright map, and it covers the background stars that I really enjoyed looking at.
Coleman wrote:Well I don't want to have to watch him bounce back and forth between bright and not so bright.
Night Strike wrote:Oh yeah, I'm neutral on the new Asteroid Belt. I don't think it improved the map, but I don't think it hurt it.
jako wrote:well, i dont think u can really improve on the lines since tuning them down makes the routes illegible. but this one seems to bright. hopefully u can find that suitable medium.
as for the belt. perhaps u can try few small sized ones, and add an occasional large asteroid in there. right now, ur just adding too many miniscule dots from my view, thats y it isnt to ur liking. but if enlarge a couple of them, adn make them sparsely spaced out, then get rid of the others except for a few.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users